Murphy, In re
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 1926,1926 |
| Citation | 214 A.2d 317,125 Vt. 272 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Dennis E. MURPHY. |
Dennis E. Murphy, pro se.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and BARNEY and SMITH, JJ., HILL and O'BRIEN, Supr. JJ.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is based on the claim of inadequate representation by counsel and invokes the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The record presented in support of the application establishes that the petitioner, Dennis E. Murphy, is held in confinement at the State Prison at Windsor on a mittimus issued by the Orange County Court. Sentence, of not less than fifteen nor more than thirty years, was imposed after the petitioner was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree on February 13, 1958.
The petitioner was indicated December 5, 1957, for the crime of first degree murder in the death of his wife, Nellie Murphy, at West Fairlee, Vermont. The offense was committed on October 22, 1957. On the following day he appeared with his counsel, a member of the bar in good standing, and entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. On the same day he was transferred to the Vermont State Hospital at Waterbury for observation.
On February 13, 1958, the petitioner appeared with his counsel in Orange County Court. At that time permission was requested to withdraw the prior plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The request was granted.
The record of the proceedings attached to the petition establishes that the respondent entered his plea of guilty to murder in the second degree in person when called upon by the court. A thorough explanation of all the facts and circumstances, including a statement of the psychiatric background of the offense, was presented to the court in the presence of the respondent by the respondent's counsel, as well as by those representing the State. At the conclusion of this presentation the presiding judge asked the petitioner if he had anything to say before sentence was imposed. The petitioner replied in the negative, adding only that he experienced a loss of memory and had he realized this he 'could have straightened myself out.'
His claim that at no time did he speak in the courtroom during the proceedings is disproved by the verbatim transcript of the record.
He further complains that the Attorney General and his own counsel erroneously referred to his deceased wife as Mary Murphy, when in fact her correct name was Nellie Louise Murphy. He also contends that at most he was guilty only of negligent use of a gun as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 4009, since the victim's death was entirely accidental.
These particular claims of error are not subject to review by habeas corpus. It is available only to review that court's jurisdiction and questions involving fundamental rights of such stature that jurisdiction is affected. In re Mears, 124 Vt. 131, 136, 198 A.2d 27; In re Greenough, 116 Vt. 277, 282, 75 A.2d 569.
The only allegation in the present petition which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith, 81-80
...whether "representation (was) so rife with shortcomings and of such low caliber as to amount to no representation." In re Murphy, 125 Vt. 272, 274, 214 A.2d 317, 318 (1965). Defendant contends that his attorneys should have explored the area of personal bias during cross-examination of the ......
-
Cronin, In re, 13-73
...the State somewhat perfunctorily relies upon the presumption of counsel's competency outlined in general terms in In re Murphy, 125 Vt. 272, 214 A.2d 317 (1965), and in State v. Rushford, 127 Vt. 105, 241 A.2d 306 (1968). It argues the passage of time, prejudice to the state, a reliance by ......
-
Kasper, In re
...the representation had been "so rife with shortcomings and of such low caliber as to amount to no representation." In re Murphy, 125 Vt. 272, 274, 214 A.2d 317, 318 (1965). Yet, the standard actually employed for reviewing the effectiveness of counsel is that of "reasonable competence" as m......
-
Bousley, In re
...of counsel. State v. Truman, 124 Vt. 285, 291-292, 204 A.2d 93 (1964); In re Shuttle, 125 Vt. 257, 258, 214 A.2d 48 (1965); In re Murphy, 125 Vt. 272, 214 A.2d 317; State v. Rushford, 127 Vt. 105, 108-110, 241 A.2d 306 There is no exact test found in the reported cases by which the effectiv......